No, the relevant thing (and what was shown in the movie) is the how and why. Just like we ended up knowing how and why Broly survived, as opposed to simply being presented to him and simply accept the fact that he survived.

Wrong. You wouldn't have known Broly survived beforehand. It's the crux of his inclusion in the story, and most of his life development in the first place. We've known for 20 years that Goku and Vegeta didn't die when the planet was blown up in the context of the story, because Raditz told us the moment it was a plot point. No such thing existed for this incarnation of Broly.

People who watched Dragon Ball didn't see what the movie showed because it was never portrayed in the series nor in the manga of which it is based on.

Raditz explains his version of events. His version, turns out, is not what actually happened. There was more to it than that. More that the general audience was not aware of.

Except there isn't. Raditz's explanation is Toriyama's explanation circa 1988. The only difference is that he retconned that Bardock has a flatter personality and relationship with his wife now. Any difference that makes on Goku is purely metatextual (not to mention worse) and still doesn't actually mean anything given that Goku remembers none of it and it's acknowledged by nobody. "He was sent to Earth" is all that anyone in the story knows or cares about. Whether that was to enslave it or just to survive doesn't really matter because nobody's alive to know or say otherwise.

Again, I don't really care that you subjectively find it to be worse or bland. That's your opinion. The story is what it is and there is a reason for why it was included. That's not something debatable.

Actually, it is. That's why I'm debating it with you right now. You give reasons you think the scenes were included, but again, you can't back that up with anything in a series where most content exists solely for the purpose of selling toys to kids. You're just saying it's a "factual reason" to artificially prop up your own argument.

I obviously disagree that any of it is worse and bland, and explained why I care about the stuff that was cut. It's not like your opinion is an universal truth or more important than mine. You're free to not care about the cut content since it's not about stuff that you care about.

They weren't interesting to you. They are interesting to me, therefore I'm interested in it.

Are you actually giving me the "that's just your opinion" talk? This is so fucking obviously just my opinion and only speaking from my tastes and point of view, I shouldn't need to type "IMO" after every statement for you to grok that.

To the production, it was a less important part of the story they chose to show with the time they had, hence why it was cut. But it had importance, hence why it was part of the story and why it was storyboarded.

And here we have doublethink, where having considered something automatically makes it matter, but choosing not to do it doesn't change that.

It's precisely because we didn't make the movie that is not up to our subjective interpretation. Bardock is in the movie because he's part of story and time period the movie explores, per Toriyama. He's part of Goku's origin, part of the reason for being sent away and part of the events of the demise of planet Vegeta. The story of the movie shows all of that, therefore Bardock is in it. Just like King Vegeta, Freeza, Paragus, Broly, etc...

"It's not up to our subjective interpretation", you cry. Immediately following this is conjecture that Bardock is in the movie for a specific reason, that is entirely your subjective interpretation.

We literally don't know anything about the interaction other than the cut content includes a fight. It's obviously not solely a fight. The fight obviously has a context.

Says who? You? Notice that this is still only talking about the storyboard, not Toriyama's script. For all we know, there might not even be dialogue accompanying this. This is what happens when we take your route of immediately going into semantics and little details that seem completely stupid and calling that a justification. How about I bullshit a thesis about how the "meaningless 15 minutes of fighting" against Broly is actually extremely important to his character and growth? Would that make you suddenly consider it better than it actually is?

This is like skipping past every time Goku uses the spirit bomb or kaio-ken and then complaining that he didn't learn anything in the year he was dead and how you're so much smarter than the writers and other fans for saying "he should have gotten new moves". The entire fucking second quarter of the film, a full half-hour, is dedicated to interaction between both new and returning characters. Being intentionally ignorant and smarmy does nothing for you, especially as the guy who's biased to a fault toward Dragon Ball Fucking Heroes, the literal epitome of soulless mindless fight scenes with minimal to non-existent character interactions.

This is like what? That has nothing to do with the point here. As for the interaction, while I kind of appreciated it, the characters you mean are Goku, Vegeta, Bulma and Whis basically. Not exactly the interaction I was expecting. It is "the entire fucking first quarter of the film, a twenty-five minutes" what should have been dedicated to interaction among the ones that need more development.

I've always loved that Z episode where Vegeta has a flashback that shows him with Raditz and Nappa while serving Freeza. It's filler, it wasn't in the manga (and what their talk about ends up contradicting what Raditz said). But I liked it because it gives us more about their characters, and it explores the relationship between the three of them, and between them, Freeza and his men.

There is also a scene featuring King Vegeta and Vegeta in early Cell saga that I liked it a lot too, that is the only scene that welcomes the recent Toriyama's statement about the royal relationship, something that has never been touched by any work. Well, we can't deny that at least Toei tried. The only reason why these scenes won't "matter" at the end of the day is our prior knowledge that they are doomed to be contradicted by later material. And the new stuff does not even try to expand and elaborate on it.

Games - You are weak. Why are you weak?Dragon Ball Super - *coughes*Games - Because you lack... Content.

This is like what? That has nothing to do with the point here. As for the interaction, while I kind of appreciated it, the characters you mean are Goku, Vegeta, Bulma and Whis basically. Not exactly the interaction I was expecting. "The entire fucking first quarter of the film, a twenty-five minutes" should have been dedicated to interaction among the ones that need more development.

Um, no? Cheelai, Broly, Lemo, Freeza and Paragus. The ones that are actually important to the plot.

Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat

This would be a great arc to ACTUALLY explore the lore of the saiyans before they have to fight broly, who is portrayed to be the most gifted saiyan in history. If done right, it could be one of the best arcs to come from dragon ball as a whole.

This would be a great arc to ACTUALLY explore the lore of the saiyans before they have to fight broly, who is portrayed to be the most gifted saiyan in history. If done right, it could be one of the best arcs to come from dragon ball as a whole.

Why did the chances of a retelling go up exactly? I hope you're right, just not sure what you are referring to.

Those anybody else think the U6 Saiyans (especially Kale) not being the Broly was a missed opportunity?

What? Not sure what you are trying to say.

Spoiler:

Super carries on much of Dragon Ball and Z's charm in ways that might not immediately be obvious, while also bringing something new to the table. I certainly can't think of any previous arcs like Goku Black, and, for all its problems, the Tournament of Power is possibly the most ambitious storytelling endeavor in series history as far as how its narrative unfolds. It's also a thrill ride, which is all I wanted and exactly what I got. Super also canonizes decades old fan theories in ways that very naturally tie into the overall fabric of Dragon Ball's world in satisfying ways. All in all, Dragon Ball, Z, and Super are all well worth experiencing.

This would be a great arc to ACTUALLY explore the lore of the saiyans before they have to fight broly, who is portrayed to be the most gifted saiyan in history. If done right, it could be one of the best arcs to come from dragon ball as a whole.

Why did the chances of a retelling go up exactly? I hope you're right, just not sure what you are referring to.

Those anybody else think the U6 Saiyans (especially Kale) not being the Broly was a missed opportunity?

What? Not sure what you are trying to say.

Considering that this is a movie about the Saiyans, why not include the ones from U6? Especially Kale, who has the same powers (and much of the same characterization) as Broly.

zarmack wrote:The whole "Dragonball is only supposed to be light and funny" mentality that exist in a lot of the fandom is in many ways even dumber than the "edgeload" side of the fandom. You know, the contrarians who think DB should be a Slice-of-Life series, the folks who worship Pre-Raditz Dragonball uncritically, the folks who downplay and often flat-out deny that Dragonball is an action series, the folks who try to push that false argument that none of the serious moments in the series were mean't to be taken seriously, etc.

Dragonball doesn't have a single tone. It has both silly and serious moments, both humor and drama, just like real life. The idea that a work of fiction should be only all-comedy or all-serious is unnatural and frankly, retarded.

This would be a great arc to ACTUALLY explore the lore of the saiyans before they have to fight broly, who is portrayed to be the most gifted saiyan in history. If done right, it could be one of the best arcs to come from dragon ball as a whole.

Why did the chances of a retelling go up exactly? I hope you're right, just not sure what you are referring to.

It would be quite disappointing if, after telling us of all the stuff they had to cut from the movie, they didn’t show it.
There’s 70 minutes off stuff they had to cut. That’s a lot of content that I would be interested in seeing, be it through and OVA/TV special or through a retelling of the movie. I was team no-retelling because it only creates confusion and bores most people who have seen the movie (and there are plenty) who want to see new material, but then why did they need to tell us multiple times that the movie originally was much longer? It would be stupid unless they plan to show us this material in the future.
Personally a movie/OVA/TV special of around 100 minutes long about the history of Saiyans which would incorporate the stuff cut from Broly and Yamoshi’s story would be ideal, so that Super can begin with a new arc. Although I wouldn’t mind it at all if they are able to reuse all of the 100 minutes of the movie for the TV show while adding the stuff that was cut: this way it would improve the show’s production, as it would basically artificially extend the show’s pre-production if all they had to do was to only animate 3 episodes worth of material (there is a script and storyboard already).

There obviously is, as we ended up seeing. Again, wether you like it or care about it is beside the point. You're free to not like it or care about it. That new information was presented is a fact, not an opinion.

Actually, it is. That's why I'm debating it with you right now. You give reasons you think the scenes were included, but again, you can't back that up with anything in a series where most content exists solely for the purpose of selling toys to kids. You're just saying it's a "factual reason" to artificially prop up your own argument.

The scenes were included because that's the story as established and provided by Toriyama. They didn't make it up, they didn't tell something else. It's what the story is about. It's not an attempt to prop up anything, it is what it is.

Are you actually giving me the "that's just your opinion" talk? This is so fucking obviously just my opinion and only speaking from my tastes and point of view, I shouldn't need to type "IMO" after every statement for you to grok that.

Everyone knows that's your opinion. The point is that it's completely unnecessary to use it as a counter-argument when it's not one. You finding something bad, bland, not interesting, whatever, is your subjective evaluation. It's not an argument that addresses mine. It's pointless talk. I'm not asking you to find interesting what I find interesting. I'm not pretending that what I find interesting is a fact. I'm not using it as an argument against yours so drop the needless condescension. Otherwise there's no point in this discussion.

Immediately following this is conjecture that Bardock is in the movie for a specific reason, that is entirely your subjective interpretation.

It's not my interpretation. Bardock is in the movie because Minus and the events of the manga are in the movie (he's part of both). It's not like Toriyama's script and story didn't include him and he was shoehorned into it.

Says who? You? Notice that this is still only talking about the storyboard, not Toriyama's script. For all we know, there might not even be dialogue accompanying this.

Context doesn't require dialogue. And yes, I do say it in contrast to what you said. Every fight has a context, it doesn't appear out of thin air. To assume that the mentioned cut content was only and exclusively a fight between the two characters is ridiculous and not what was said. But hey, you're free to make that assumption. I'll stick to mine.

Sorry if this has been brought up already, but does anyone know what’s so special about the Amazon JP version of the limited edition set? Is it just a handkerchief?

An interviewer asks, "The soundtrack in Sonic 3 has become legendary. Is it true that you worked with Michael Jackson on it?" Takashi Iizuka kills all of our hopes and dreams by replying, "You know, those are just rumors, and SEGA does not want to say anything about them. So they will forever be just rumors..." WHY!?

If they simply appeared, I inherently would know. And by your logic, that's enough.

No you wouldn't, because you apparently require long flashbacks to things we've already been told in 1988 for something to be properly "explained". This incarnation of Broly was never a factor in the story before, but we've known for years that Goku was sent to Earth and the others were on-mission, and there's nothing here that makes any difference to the point in the story that the movie takes place.

Why are you under the assumption that it has to change something? It expands upon what we knew. It explains how and why he survived.

Yeah which is why it's perfect for a non-story extra chapter like Minus, not Dragon Ball Super: Broly. It's a movie, not a wiki article. The flashbacks in the film have no connection to Goku and Vegeta's purpose in the story. Also everything it changes is for the worse and didn't need to happen, but semantics.

There obviously is, as we ended up seeing. Again, wether you like it or care about it is beside the point. You're free to not like it or care about it. That new information was presented is a fact, not an opinion.

Again, it informs nothing. The only "new" thing to learn is a more-boring version of something we already knew happened.

The scenes were included because that's the story as established and provided by Toriyama. They didn't make it up, they didn't tell something else. It's what the story is about. It's not an attempt to prop up anything, it is what it is.

I'm not sure you really understood what I said here. Obviously the scenes are in the movie because that's the movie they made. That doesn't mean they're meaningful or needed to be there.

Everyone knows that's your opinion. The point is that it's completely unnecessary to use it as a counter-argument when it's not one. You finding something bad, bland, not interesting, whatever, is your subjective evaluation. It's not an argument that addresses mine. It's pointless talk. I'm not asking you to find interesting what I find interesting.

Well but you kinda are. You're saying it's all necessary and required and acting like your assumed reasoning for the way it was made is an absolute truth and I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it doesn't need to be here because it adds nothing, what do you think adding something means? Because it's not literally anything, and the only difference in our opinions is that you think nothing is something. This is a story. Which parts of it are worth showing (especially ones that have been already explained) are inherently a subjective debate whether you like it or not.

No, it doesn't. And the difference is that I never implied that it did.

Nor did I the inverse, but that didn't seem to be a problem for you. You seem to have this idea that if something is included, it's automatically meaningful and necessary. That's not true, and there's no "fact" that says it does. The only factors at play in this argument is your opinion versus mine, and so far all you've done is say that because a scene was produced, that means it's good enough to be a part of the movie about Broly. I'm not saying this stuff has no place in the story of Dragon Ball (well, I mean, the Bardock stuff doesn't because it's shite, but regardless), but the movie is Dragon Ball Super: Broly. Despite the marketing claiming that it's about three saiyans, only one is given an arc throughout the film. Only one's backstory actually connects to their role in the plot, and the other two are just there to half-heartedly claim that something bigger is going on than it is. None of this is "objective", on your end OR mine.

It's not my interpretation. Bardock is in the movie because Minus and the events of the manga are in the movie (he's part of both). It's not like Toriyama's script and story didn't include him and he was shoehorned into it.

It is your interpretation, because there's nothing that directly confirms or denies that at all. You don't think it's possible other aspects of production or management had an influence on what Toriyama wrote? This is the fourth Broly movie, you think he just chose that and didn't want to do something more original? It's 100% your interpretation, your assumption, so long as we don't have anything at all to confirm that.

Context doesn't require dialogue. And yes, I do say it in contrast to what you said. Every fight has a context, it doesn't appear out of thin air. To assume that the mentioned cut content was only and exclusively a fight between the two characters is ridiculous and not what was said. But hey, you're free to make that assumption. I'll stick to mine.

Yeah, you're saying it. Not the people who made the movie.

Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat

This would be a great arc to ACTUALLY explore the lore of the saiyans before they have to fight broly, who is portrayed to be the most gifted saiyan in history. If done right, it could be one of the best arcs to come from dragon ball as a whole.

Why did the chances of a retelling go up exactly? I hope you're right, just not sure what you are referring to.

Those anybody else think the U6 Saiyans (especially Kale) not being the Broly was a missed opportunity?

What? Not sure what you are trying to say.

Considering that this is a movie about the Saiyans, why not include the ones from U6? Especially Kale, who has the same powers (and much of the same characterization) as Broly.

Broly has powers far different from kale. No where alike other than appearance. He is a mutant saiyan that can grow in power immensely fast (grew from base/ssj level to top tier hakaishin level in less than an hour) and has the ability to channel oozaru powers in his humanoid form.

So it would seem there is 70 minutes worth of deleted scenes for the film. Think it will be anything relevant or just adding to fight scenes? I hope if it relevant it at least gives us Bardocks final stand

So it would seem there is 70 minutes worth of deleted scenes for the film. Think it will be anything relevant or just adding to fight scenes? I hope if it relevant it at least gives us Bardocks final stand

That's misinformation.

It's not 70 minutes of actual footage, just cut storyboard stuff that never made it to the final cut.

70 minutes worth of storyboard was cut from the film. God-fucking-damn! I don't care too much about some of the scenes set in the past being cut out, because from the sounds of it none of it has much to do with the main plot of the film. Nappa vs Raditz and scenes of Vegeta and Raditz sound neat on their own, but for a film that focuses on the character Broly, that stuff feels more like a distraction from the main narrative.

However, if some of that 70 minute cut material actually had some kind of impact on developing the plot of the film (and I'm sure it did) then I would be more than happy to see an extended edition. I'm not expecting an almost 3 hour version of the film in the future, that'd be crazy. I'm expecting an extended cut with 20-30 minutes of additional footage. Hopefully when the film eventually airs on Fuji TV they'll be airing an extended version.

So it would seem there is 70 minutes worth of deleted scenes for the film. Think it will be anything relevant or just adding to fight scenes? I hope if it relevant it at least gives us Bardocks final stand

That's misinformation.

It's not 70 minutes of actual footage, just cut storyboard stuff that never made it to the final cut.

Gotcha. I was just going off of social media posts and articles I saw linked. Still interesting though

It's not 70 minutes of actual footage, just cut storyboard stuff that never made it to the final cut.

How much of those 70 minutes are likely to make it into the extended cut, assuming there is one? I do agree with the general consensus that Bardock's final stand could have used more time. It certainly looked like something was cut there.

So that's the first we've heard about some of the cut content (can't wait for the inevitable post about how the movie "isn't a real story" without that stuff now), but if that's the most important distinction of what was cut it sounds like we really weren't missing much after all. I mean, does seeing Raditz and Nappa fight really add anything to the Broly story? Not really. It'd be interesting to learn what else was cut, but this does slightly satiate my worries that they took out something important.

What is the "Broly story"? I think the story of the movie is not just about the character of Broly, but also a story about the Saiyan race. Hence why Toriyama took the opportunity to explore their backstory a bit through Vegeta, Broly and Goku and the characters related to them. In that sense, they are important, simply not enough to remain in the movie and compromise its running time (at least to Toei).

Is the half hour, non stop fight really important to the story? Is there even a story in there? Would we be "missing much" if that was cut in half? This is, of course all, subjective. To me, the backstory was by far the most interesting part of the movie and it pains me to be reminded that it was the part most affected by cut content. And since these apparently never left the storyboard phase, we will probably only see them if a TV version is eventually funded or in a possible retelling of the movie for the series.

Yes the fighting was [is always] very important because it connected up with the flashback about the Saiyans being a battle race. It also confirmed why Broly was exiled due to his future potential in battle power. This story was about Broly, it was his introduction to Dragonball, his character and power were fleshed out. Vegeta and Goku were merely apart of Broly's story due to Paragus's past grudge against King Vegeta. Which really had nothing to do with them. They were merely used to develop Broly. Everyone else was side pieces for Broly's stage.